Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

It will not come as a surprise to the Minister of State that one reason a division took place in the House earlier today regarding this legislation was because its handling, in respect of the length of time it has taken to bring it to the House, has been farcical. For the past three years in a row and more, Members have been obliged to extend the regional fisheries boards as currently constituted. Each time, they have been told by the sitting Minister, who, to be fair has not always been the current incumbent, that by the following summer or by this time next year, new structures would be in place and, therefore, new elections to the regional fisheries boards were not required. Each time, however, nothing has happened. Each time, Members waited for another year when, through ministerial order, the request again was made to postpone elections to fisheries boards.

While I am unsure whether there is anything to be gained by harping on about this issue because Members are getting on with the task now, it is important to note when one has made a bags of something. Although the legislation's content looks pretty good, it is clear there has been no ministerial drive or priority accorded to this issue. Consequently, the Bill has only reached the House two weeks before the Dáil is due to break up and it is clear that Members will not complete their deliberations on it before the end of the year either. As a result, I expect the Minister will be obliged to return to the House in ten days or less to ask Members to postpone the elections to the regional fisheries boards yet again, in order that they can conclude the debate on this legislation early next year.

This is no way in which to do business, particularly when Members have listened repeatedly to the same mantra to the effect that this issue would be dealt with by the following year and that Members should work with the Government on it. Last year, out of frustration, the two Opposition spokespersons refused to work with the Government on this issue and opposed the deferral of elections to regional fisheries boards. They again were promised that this issue would be dealt with by the end of the summer but, again, that did not happen and Members find themselves back in the same position once more. I acknowledge the risk of boring the House and I will not go on about this subject for too long. I commend those who have worked on the legislation as they appear to have put together a comprehensive Bill. However, it contains a number of items that I wish to discuss.

I recognise and commend the work that has been done by many people in both the Central Fisheries Board and in regional fisheries boards, some of whom I have got to know through correspondence during my time as a public representative. It is not easy for people who are in an existing structure to adapt to an entirely new structure that is being set up. I recognise this has been a difficult change to accept within some of the regional boards in particular. However, I believe the Minister is correct to press ahead with his proposals and that it should have happened before now.

I believe that people who do not fish often do not appreciate the resource the inland waterways of Ireland constitute in respect of tourism potential, commercial fishing potential and aquaculture. Ireland is blessed with a fantastic network of natural resources in the form of its inland waterways and these resources should be exploited to the full in a sustainable manner that can ensure that, in 50 years' time, people still will be able to enjoy them. Unfortunately, there have been examples of overfishing, collapsed fish stocks within certain rivers in particular and of mistakes that have been made. I believe it probably makes sense that with a single co-ordinated body, the risk of making such mistakes in the future will be minimised.

As for the new structures, it is proposed to amalgamate the Central Fisheries Board, seven regional boards, the national salmon commission and eight fisheries co-operative societies into a single new body to be called inland fisheries Ireland. Lessons must be learned and although it is overused as an example, I refer to the establishment of the HSE, whereby regional health boards were abolished and a single centralised body was set up. This has not worked in respect of understanding and developing proper health plans on a regional basis. The concern among those who are involved in this industry, as well as among the many board members who no longer will be involved formally in the structures, is that the issues which are specific to their regions will not be catered for in a detailed way by a single centralised body, which will receive advice from a standing scientific committee and will receive policy suggestions from a national inland fisheries forum. Although not ideal, the manner in which current structures work provides a real voice to local anglers, fishermen, angling clubs, draft net users and a whole series of other local interest groups because in a very Irish way, people get to know who is locally responsible for the management of inland waterways in their region.

The idea of holding a national inland fisheries forum in the midlands or elsewhere is unlikely to attract a level of interest to encourage people to make representations or provide the financial supports for them to travel to it. We need to ensure those who cannot afford the time or costs to travel a relatively long distance to a meeting are catered for by moving the forum around the country. It must focus on different regions at various meetings rather than having a centralised meeting room outside of Dublin. Many local anglers have limited resources but feel their local concerns are being listened to under the current structures. It is important, therefore, that they are catered for in the proposed restructuring. I note the Minister of State has taken on board this point and hope he will consider it between now and Committee Stage.

I accept the whittling down of 150 members of the central and regional fisheries boards to a nine-member board of IFI makes sense. However, regional representation will need to be considered in this context. While the legislation has catered for gender balance on the board, it should also ensure regional balance. Section 12(5) states, "a person shall not be appointed by the Minister to be a member of IFI unless he or she has had experience of or shown capacity in agriculture, aquaculture, business or commercial affairs" and so forth. The management of waterways in various areas can present different issues concerning types of fish stocks, challenges and risks from aquaculture and commercial fishing, factors which will be known only to regional representatives. As important as it is to have a balance of skill sets, it is also important to have a balance of regional representation on the board.

The new districts being defined under the European Communities water policy negotiations 2003 roughly represent the regional fisheries boards areas of the past. This is important because people are used to the management of their region, its skill sets and resources.

Will the Minister consider the involvement of the new body in monitoring and being responsible for sea angling? Sea angling, of which I have much experience in Cork Harbour, increasingly involves travel to reefs, offshore areas and fish-breeding areas. It tends to transcend the set borders of regional fisheries board areas. Inland fisheries tend to be defined specifically by rivers and riverbanks while sea fisheries are more of a grey area. Often there is no direct relationship between the fish that come out to sea at river mouths and those caught by sea anglers off the Old Head of Kinsale, for example. Sea angling is not as regulated or monitored in the same way as angling in inland waterways. The IFI, when established, should consider some measures for sea angling. We do not want to over-regulate the activity since the whole idea of going fishing centres on the freedom it involves. At the same time, safety standards need to be ensured and the type of fishing monitored. Will the Minister of State clarify the Bill's intentions in this regard?

Another issue concerns the linkage between other bodies involved in inland waterways such as the Marine Institute, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the ESB. Work needs to be done on an ongoing basis, particularly with the ESB, concerning stocking levels such as ensuring salmon can return to spawning grounds over ESB dams in, for example, the River Lee basin catchment area. Saying that, it would be some salmon to get back up the Lee dams at the moment with the amount of water coming down. Does the Minister intend to include these bodies, as well as other representative groups from the aquaculture industry in the proposed national inland fisheries forum?

The aquaculture industry has enormous potential in Ireland. We have some of the most ideal inlets, bays and harbours for aquaculture in the world, particularly in Cork and the south west. I am not sure we have got it right to date, however. It must be developed in a sustainable manner sympathetic with the management of harbours and other inland waterways.

Regarding the proposed procedures for appointments to the IFI board, it must be remembered that any organisation is driven by its board. The quality of appointees to the IFI board will be extremely important. There was recently a long debate on the appointment of the board for the new Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. The same principle of asking an Oireachtas committee to become involved has been employed in this Bill. The committee proposes names to the Minister which, unless for some extraordinary reason, he or she will accept.

I wish to share some of the experience the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources had in this process. We have taken legal and human resources advice, advertised and invited expressions of interest. We have gone through an initial interview process with a view to narrowing down the choice. A total of 140 people applied and we want to narrow it down to a much smaller number for secondary interviews. Then we want to narrow it down to 12 people, of whom we will choose four. It has been, and continues to be, a long, tedious process, which, I hope will produce a good result.

The quality of the candidates is extraordinary in terms of their background and past success. The message is that there are many talented people seeking to be on such boards who have lots to offer, are highly qualified and are not seeking financial return. They wish to be part of a State body that is running a sector of the country. Many of them have never even considered the option in the past because they assumed they had to be preferred by a Minister, have political connection or be recommended by a Department. When one advertises and seeks expressions of interest, one gets an entirely new type of person applying for this type of role.

The irony of what we are doing currently is that the Minister's process for choosing his nominees for the board is one that has always been in place; he asks his officials to recommend names and he chooses them according to his own reasons and is not answerable to anyone. On the other hand, the committee is trying to do everything perfectly; going through the processes, narrowing down the list on the basis of the criteria in the legislation, trying to achieve gender balance and giving everyone a fair opportunity. Canvassing would virtually result in a candidate being eliminated. There is a gaping difference between how, on the one hand, the Minister is putting his people on the board and how, on the other, the committee is behaving. It is only nominating candidates for the Minister to choose.

I commend the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, on being willing to do things differently, but I am not sure we have got it right yet. Perhaps when the Bill advances to Committee Stage we can have a detailed debate on how we put the boards together and select them and how that process works, learning from the lessons of the process that is being adopted and the successes and potential failures we are currently experiencing with the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. We will have time to do it because, realistically, the legislation will not be in place until well into the new year.

What is being attempted is to have one board member nominated by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and one by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. The staff, as is correct, will have a nominee, the Minister will nominate three and then the committee will go through a long process to ensure that it is seen to be getting it right and that it is done in a fair and transparent way to make its three suggestions. I have made the case many times that I would be happier with a system that would require all of the ministerial and staff nominees to come before an Oireachtas committee and that it would have the right of approval rather than trying to find candidates. The role of an Oireachtas committee is to hold the Minister and the Government to account, to test the systems and ensure that they are robust.

To be frank, it is the role of the Minister to make those choices, not to give away that power to a committee. We have differences of opinion on the issue but my role as an Opposition spokesperson is to ensure that the decisions the Minister makes are the correct ones based on the right criteria. That is why I prefer the concept of the committee having a vetting role rather than asking the committee to give three names. We could have a hearing system that would approve the choice of Ministers and in this case the staff to ensure that there is an appropriate balance on the board. Instead, what we have is six board members being selected in the old way, which needs to change, and three people going through an intensive process in the manner I have outlined. There is something wrong with that. Everyone appointed to the board should go through approximately the same process, with the exception perhaps of the staff nominee in terms of his or her background, qualifications and what he or she has to offer.

I welcome the arrival of the Bill in the House. I thank the Minister's officials who took the time to give a personal briefing on it. The legislation is substantial even though its purpose is straightforward and simple. The Bill consists of 94 pages, which is a lot. I accept it takes time but the long time the Bill has taken reflects the priority it had within Government. I do not accept that the genesis of the Bill only dates back to last year's budget when the Minister announced a rationalisation of quangos programme. The Bill was promised five years ago. It is in the House now and we will work with it. I support its main principle but I hope the Minister and his officials will take on board some of the concerns I have expressed.

See this speech in context